ArticleBMJ open2021
Cost-utility analysis of a multicomponent intervention for fibromyalgia syndrome in primary care versus usual clinical practice: study protocol for an economic evaluation of a randomised control trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04049006 (Primary Care as a Promoter of the Quality of Life of Fibromyalgia Patients. Effectiveness and Cost-utility of a Complex Intervention Through a Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Primary Care as a Promoter of the Quality of Life of Fibromyalgia Patients. Effectiveness and Cost-utility of a Complex Intervention Through a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-utility of a multicomponent intervention for fibromyalgia versus usual care: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Trial
- Fibromyalgia: A Review of the Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Multidisciplinary Treatment Strategies.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) imposes a high cost on society. The significant economic burden from the use of healthcare and, especially, social resources is a spur to revising the usual clinical care (UCC) and to improving treatment strategies. FMS has a deleterious effect on the quality of life (QOL) and productivity, which considerably increase the indirect costs to society. This study reports an economic evaluation comparing the cost and health benefits in a multicomponent intervention programme and UCC of patients with FMS who attend primary healthcare centres of the Gerència Territorial Terres de L'Ebre region of Catalonia, Spain. This article is linked to the pre-results of a randomised control trial study on the implementation of this intervention programme (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04049006). METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A cost-utility analysis will be conducted from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years will be calculated from the results of the SF-36 questionnaire, a QOL measurement instrument. Direct and indirect healthcare costs will be obtained from official prices and reports published by the Spanish Public Health Administration and the National Statistics Institute. The incremental cost-utility ratio will be estimated to compare the two healthcare practices. Deterministic sensitivity analysis will also be used to compare different cost scenarios, modifying the items with the highest weight in the cost composition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol Institute approved this study on 25 April 2018 (code P18/068) in accordance with the Helsinki/Tokyo Declaration. Information will be provided orally and in writing to participants, and their informed consent will be required. Participant anonymity will be guaranteed. The dissemination strategy includes publications in scientific journals and presentations in local and national media and at academic conferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.